Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#101

Post by mkaltenecker » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 9:49 PM UTC

_b8r0 wrote: post #98

shinratdr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough. That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it. Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be…

> That isn't what happened. It used to be true Stop drinking the kool aid. It was never true. OS X was exploit central for years. It was only the BSD base that stopped it from being exploitable from the network. All the client side stuff Apple added for years was RCE-you-like. Also a fundamental thing about security is the acceptance that security by obscurity is not a defensive measure. Genuine security doesn't rely…

OS X was very safe (I won’t dare to make any claims about security) for a long time exactly because PC viruses couldn’t touch it. That’s a real and practical benefit. OS X users didn’t have to deal with viruses. To an extent that is still true – but it has now also become true to an extent for Windows users: They also don’t have to deal with viruses any longer, even if they take no precautions at all (at least most of the time). So that advantage has disappeared and if Apple continues to move so slowly the balance might tip.

Still, I can’t find anything wrong with the marketing language they used.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#102

Post by tobylane » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:08 PM UTC

_b8r0 wrote: post #98

shinratdr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough. That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it. Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be…

> That isn't what happened. It used to be true Stop drinking the kool aid. It was never true. OS X was exploit central for years. It was only the BSD base that stopped it from being exploitable from the network. All the client side stuff Apple added for years was RCE-you-like. Also a fundamental thing about security is the acceptance that security by obscurity is not a defensive measure. Genuine security doesn't rely…

You lost a lot of people by saying kool aid.

OSX's major malware holes are Microsoft Office, java and flash. After that the malware has to depend on the user putting their password.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#103

Post by yalogin » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:09 PM UTC

fjorder wrote: post #75

While Apple's install base is steadily growing, I still think they have a significant advantage in obscurity that grants them security. i.e. Why do virus-writers target Windows? Sure, it has the largest install base, but Windows also runs a lot of servers and embedded systems. These two things are the real jackpots. What's taking control of one person's computer compared to taking control of a server with credit card…

What do you mean by obscurity? Which level of the system are referring to? You seem to indicate that Windows is somehow open. Can you explain what you have in mind?

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#104

Post by aidenn0 » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:23 PM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #69

batista wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in the context we are discussing, a PC is not a "personal computer", but what was called an "IBM PC compatible" (and subsequently by some a Wintel machine). Few people use "PC" to mean personal computers in general, especially since for 99% of the people personal computers are all they know and encounter anyway, so no need to distinguish both Mac and PCs from, say, Mainframes and embedded systems.... That's why n…

I was under the impression that since Macs went over to x86, they were capable of running Windows. They are IBM PC compatible.

I have a floppy drive and my PC will run some old PC games that ran bare-metal (i.e. booted off the floppy). Macs by design, can't boot those.

Also it's a bit freaky that my disk from 1987 still works in a machine I built last-year. Some games assumed a 4.77MHz clock though, and I there's no turbo button, so they don't really work :(

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#105

Post by kalleboo » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:31 PM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #69

batista wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in the context we are discussing, a PC is not a "personal computer", but what was called an "IBM PC compatible" (and subsequently by some a Wintel machine). Few people use "PC" to mean personal computers in general, especially since for 99% of the people personal computers are all they know and encounter anyway, so no need to distinguish both Mac and PCs from, say, Mainframes and embedded systems.... That's why n…

I was under the impression that since Macs went over to x86, they were capable of running Windows. They are IBM PC compatible.

If we're going to be technical, since they don't run a PC BIOS (they use the newer EFI), they're not compatible with the original IBM PC.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#106

Post by firefoxman1 » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:33 PM UTC

reidmain wrote: post #53

"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than…

I agree, nothing is as secure as a well-aware user. I removed a virus for someone last week and when I asked her why she didn't have antivirus software installed, she said "Oh, Cox has their own antivirus running through the wires."

...Cox provides a free antivirus that you can download. But that sense of security that both ISP's and antivirus companies provide is the reason so many people still get infected.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#107

Post by fjorder » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:33 PM UTC

yalogin wrote: post #103

fjorder wrote: post #75

While Apple's install base is steadily growing, I still think they have a significant advantage in obscurity that grants them security. i.e. Why do virus-writers target Windows? Sure, it has the largest install base, but Windows also runs a lot of servers and embedded systems. These two things are the real jackpots. What's taking control of one person's computer compared to taking control of a server with credit card…

What do you mean by obscurity? Which level of the system are referring to? You seem to indicate that Windows is somehow open. Can you explain what you have in mind?

I said what I meant by "obscurity" and I did not say anything about Windows being open, but I'll restate things in other words in case it clears things up.

OSX and iOS are used predominantly to run personal computing devices. In addition to PC's, Windows also runs a significant number of the world's servers (although Linux dominates here) and embedded systems (see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embed...). Despite OSX and iOS gaining significant market share, virus-writers may still find that the sweetest targets are disproportionately running windows. OSX and iOS are more "obscure" in the sense that they don't run many of the systems virus-writers want to target.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#108

Post by WayneDB » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:37 PM UTC

adgar wrote: post #92

SquareWheel wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't dealt with Windows malware in a decade. Have you?

Wow! 10 years of only using computers operated and actively maintained by users who can stay up-to-date on security best practices. You made it from before XP until now without ever dealing with Windows malware! You're pretty damn lucky - I sometimes use computers that belong to laypeople :-(

I have a whole family of Windows users and none of them have gotten a virus in over the past decade. None of them except for me are very technically inclined either. However, they don't visit porn sites or pirate software either.

The last virus that I personally got was back during the Win95 days. It was the NY Boot Virus, which I got by accidentally leaving a floppy (which I got from someone at work) in the drive during boot.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#109

Post by WayneDB » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:42 PM UTC

wfarr wrote: post #97

mrich wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple won big in smartphones, but Android has a bigger marketshare. Competition between all smartphone vendors have made the customer the biggest winner in any case.

Is that even relevant when Apple is taking home the biggest slice of the profit pie?

Of course it is relevant. A large Android market share keeps Apple on it's toes and as mrich said, consumers win. It also means that although Apple is winning by profit margins at the moment, they may not be in the future.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#110

Post by josephcooney » Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 10:46 PM UTC

nathan_long wrote: post #29

zdw wrote: post #12

"It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. It's just not as relevant as it used to be, as Windows is much better in this regard today. If anything, this change is a nod to how the computing industry has moved on - using a Mac is no longer PC virus avoidance, but more "use this because it's great". That said, most of the "virus" writers have turned to spyware and adware, and other scummy malware…

>> "It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. Until someone writes a 2-in-1 virus that can infect cross-platform.

In biology they call this a pandemic.